Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This author says that since the beginning of America, we've been ruled by benevolent wealthy Yankee northerners and now we are being ruled by southern techno-phobic, brutal, violent plantation owners. It's a very interesting read and is a take on how things are going in the USA that I had never considered before.
The military — always a Southern-dominated institution — sucks down 60% of our federal discretionary spending, and is undergoing a rapid evangelical takeover as well.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen!! That was a good piece, but that sentence really resonated with me because i'd never really thought of the military that way.
It was bit cartoonish in it's portrayal of the Southern gentry and a way too generous describing the munificence of Yankee elites. However, this aptly describes what the current crop of right-wingers are talking about when they throw around words like liberty and freedom:
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way
They don't want freedom and liberty in the classic sense of the words. They want freedom to subjugate, freedom retain their dominance in the socio-economic ladder, freedom for the social contract that hold together a free society, and freedom to take away the civil rights of those they deem as different, immoral, and unworthy.
It was bit cartoonish in it's portrayal of the Southern elites and a way too generous describing the munificence of Yankee gentry. However, this aptly describes what the current crop of right-wingers are talking about when they throw around words like liberty and freedom:
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control -- and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way
They don't want freedom and liberty in the classic sense of the words. They want freedom to subjugate, freedom retain their dominance in the socio-economic ladder, freedom for the social contract that hold together a free society, and freedom to take away the civil rights of those they deem as different, immoral, and unworthy.
If you truly believe any of this, you know what that makes you? A bigot, that's right and damn bigot!
If you truly believe any of this, you know what that makes you? A bigot, that's right and damn bigot!
Care to explain that one? I'd love to learn what it takes to be branded a bigot by someone with a comment history like yours.
Also, care to comment on the actual link? Like I said, the characterizations are flawed, but description of the the heart of the Republican party having moved from the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bush I types to the current power players is pretty spot-on. Your thoughts?
Care to explain that one? I'd love to learn what it takes to be branded a bigot by someone with a comment history like yours.
Also, care to comment on the actual link? Like I said, the characterizations are flawed, but description of the the heart of the Republican party having moved from the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bush I types to the current power players is pretty spot-on. Your thoughts?
You put people into neat little boxes, that's called stereotyping/bigotry.
You neither read the link and have anything substantive to say about it's analysis, nor did you seem to read where I was critical the authors one-dimensional portrayal of both groups.
In other words, add something to the conversation instead of throwing firebombs and calling people bigots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
